Hi all
For the last 30 odd years, I have been stuck with a brick wall in my ancestry, in the from of my ggg-grandfather, Robert Gumbleton. In the past few days, the newspaper archives people have released a whole batch of new, early nineteenth century newspapers for Kent, in which I have found several useful references to my ancestor, so I'm hoping to unbrick some of the wall, at last!
Robert was a Grocer with a shop in Deal, Kent, but I have found a newspaper notice, dating from July 1811, suggesting that things went badly for his business. It says "Robert Gumbleton of Deal, in this County, Shopkeeper, having made an Assignment of all his effects in trust, for the benefit of his Creditors, to Mr Robert Richard Manley, of Aldermanbury Church-yard, in the City of London, tea-dealer, and Mr George Fitch, of Leadenhall-street, in the said city, cheesemonger,—Notice is hereby given, to all those who have any demand against the said Robert Gumbleton, to send an account thereof to either of the above named Trustees, within twenty days from the date hereof, or they will be excluded the benefit arising from the estate."
I take this to mean that Robert was insolvent, but rather than being declared bankrupt, he had signed over everything directly to his creditors. If anyone here understands the difference between a bankruptcy and an "assignment of effects in trust for creditors", I'd be very grateful for any insights.
The thing I really don't understand is that it goes on to say: that "all persons who are indebted to the said estate, are desired immediately to pay the same to Mr John Backhouse, of Deal, who is authorised to receive the same, and who is carrying on the business for the benefit of Mrs Gumbleton and her family." I would have thought that either the business would have closed down (most likely) or would have been continued for the benefit of the creditors. It seems strange that it is allowed to continue for the benefit of the family. Any ideas, anyone?
Cheers
Steve
For the last 30 odd years, I have been stuck with a brick wall in my ancestry, in the from of my ggg-grandfather, Robert Gumbleton. In the past few days, the newspaper archives people have released a whole batch of new, early nineteenth century newspapers for Kent, in which I have found several useful references to my ancestor, so I'm hoping to unbrick some of the wall, at last!
Robert was a Grocer with a shop in Deal, Kent, but I have found a newspaper notice, dating from July 1811, suggesting that things went badly for his business. It says "Robert Gumbleton of Deal, in this County, Shopkeeper, having made an Assignment of all his effects in trust, for the benefit of his Creditors, to Mr Robert Richard Manley, of Aldermanbury Church-yard, in the City of London, tea-dealer, and Mr George Fitch, of Leadenhall-street, in the said city, cheesemonger,—Notice is hereby given, to all those who have any demand against the said Robert Gumbleton, to send an account thereof to either of the above named Trustees, within twenty days from the date hereof, or they will be excluded the benefit arising from the estate."
I take this to mean that Robert was insolvent, but rather than being declared bankrupt, he had signed over everything directly to his creditors. If anyone here understands the difference between a bankruptcy and an "assignment of effects in trust for creditors", I'd be very grateful for any insights.
The thing I really don't understand is that it goes on to say: that "all persons who are indebted to the said estate, are desired immediately to pay the same to Mr John Backhouse, of Deal, who is authorised to receive the same, and who is carrying on the business for the benefit of Mrs Gumbleton and her family." I would have thought that either the business would have closed down (most likely) or would have been continued for the benefit of the creditors. It seems strange that it is allowed to continue for the benefit of the family. Any ideas, anyone?
Cheers
Steve